Spinal cord response to stepwise and block presentation of thermal stimuli: A functional MRI study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To examine the characteristics of the spinal cord and brainstem blood oxygenation level-dependent (BOLD) responses to peripheral stimulation in which the temperature is raised in a stepwise fashion, in order to enhance receptor responses, compared to a block design. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies of the spinal cord and brainstem were carried out in 14 healthy volunteers at 3T. Thermal sensory stimuli were applied to the right hand in a block-design paradigm, and in a stepwise paradigm to the same peak temperature. Data were analyzed by means of a general linear model, region of interest analyses, and by structural equation modeling. RESULTS: Results demonstrated BOLD responses in a number of consistent regions between the two paradigms as well as significant differences (P < .001) in the locations and magnitudes of some responses. Specifically, the BOLD response in the dorsal horn was significantly higher in the stepwise compared to the block condition (P < .001). However, more significant connections (T >2) between regions were observed in the block condition. CONCLUSION: Results from this study demonstrate the means to design thermal sensory paradigms to probe components of sensory processing in the brainstem and spinal cord.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".